My input to Firaxis

Rhye

's and Fall creator
Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2001
Messages
9,984
Location
Japan / Italy / Germany
As I see Civ4 development is going on, I can't wait anymore, I must add my input to the New Testament.
I'm not much skilled in playing Civ3, but I'm a map maker, terrain graphics creator and mod maker combined, so my requests are made from my point of view:

- Please make everything customizable, nothing hardcoded. But I've read that you're doing this, so I'm satisfied.

- Add a script file like civ2 events.txt. It should include commands like
Create unit (x,y,civ,turn)
Delete all units (x,y,turn)
Join a civ in the game (civ,turn)
Delete a civ from the game (civ, turn)
Flip a city from one civ to another (civ1,civ2,x,y,turn)
Flip all the cities in a certain radius from a civ to another (civ1,civ2,x,y,radius,turn)

- When creating a scenario, AI often behaves in a way you don't want. For example, in a WWII scenario, I could desire Germany to attack Russia while it is still in peace, while instead it tries to send a settler to Iceland.
It would be really cool if it was possible to indicate a region of preference of expansion (x1,x2,y1,y2) and possibly more than one region. This makes sense in already made maps, of course.

- Include some test modes like 0 players, and take control of a player. Just like Civ2. Much more useful to understand what's happening, instead of looking inside the cities with embassies. A reveal map option would be useful, too.

- Cultural city flips: please no more only enable/disable but work around the problem. When you conquer a city next to the enemy capital you can get angry if you lose it together with your units inside. So, when a flip occurs, instead of converting suddenly, some enemy units should come out around the city - exactly as partisans in Civ2. Much more simple and realistic.

- Customization must include various barbarians advanced units and number of uprising units.

- Expand build often and build never sections with flags for each improvement, not for groups.

- Enable the possibility of having a leader name per each era.

- You're going to make a 3D world, I try to imagine it. I would like it to be like - do you remember UFO Enemy Unknown? There was a world, you can rotate it and zoom in and out. In case of the Earth, this will delete all the problems of sphere-to-plan projection. In case of a plan instead of sphere, rotate shouldn't be enabled.

- Include copy&paste buttons and resize, cut and shift functions, very useful for mapmaking. They can save a lot of time.

- Make reliefs (hills, mountains) an indipendent factor from vegetation - you can have forests on hills and desertic place 2000 meters high.

- Make possible importing the map or some of the rules from a BIQ file.

- Improve AI so that its primary thought isn't only building settlers

- Take care of the speed of game. We don't want to have cups of tea between turns

- Very important: in civ3 there's a strong relation between territory (number of cities) and population with power andscientific research. This relation must be altered because it doesn't reflect real life. Netherlands (small territory and population) is more advanced than India (large territory and population). And too large empires can be very inefficient and often collapse. Remember China during Imperialism...
I think there are some books, I don't remember the tile, that try to explain the reasons of European dominance.

- For the same reasons, make more forms of city conquests - not only civ flipping. You can just occupy a city for a number of turns, or put in protectorate (which would force a mutual protection pact). And protectorate should be something worth to trade.

- Try to put historical accuracy before fun. If I see invented units, etc. I lose my fun, and it's not just me: everyone who loves history.

- No more male-female equity, it doesn't make sense. Please no more Joan of Arc and Theodora. Please.

- I have read that you want to release it for early 2005. Isn't that too early? I haven't still played all the Conquests, and much of the mods are still in development. Take your time and satisfy our requests, please. There's no reason to hurry, we'll be playing Conquests for a long time.
 
Nice ideas :goodjob:

- Improve AI so that its primary thought isn't only building settlers
Yeh! It annoys me when available space fills up extremely quickly. Perhaps to add to this, more city limits during the early ages (ancient/middle) as they tend to see quite unrealistic expansion. And I mean limits related to the age, not the government. It would need to be balanced so that you can still add to your empire, but not by building trillions of settlers!
- Take care of the speed of game. We don't want to have cups of tea between turns
Or lunch between turns as often happens when playing large scenarios....
- Cultural city flips: please no more only enable/disable but work around the problem. When you conquer a city next to the enemy capital you can get angry if you lose it together with your units inside. So, when a flip occurs, instead of converting suddenly, some enemy units should come out around the city - exactly as partisans in Civ2. Much more simple and realistic.
YES yes yes! It annoys me greatly when I loose an army, just because it was residing in a city that flipped!

Just to add one request to the already very good list:

- An option Prevent certain civs from going to war with each other. Example: It always annoys me when playing WW2 scenarios to have Switzerland declaring war on someone like Sweeden, or to have Poland launching a hold crusade against Turkey. And so on. So it would be nice to have a mod feature which prevents situations like this arising.
 
Very good points - especially the no hard coding - I could have weapt with joy when I read that (no more spending all my time figuring out ways around the hard coding). Also a point that I think needs to be finaly brought in is no more cylinderical maps - make them ROUND - the Earth doesn't just curve to the East and West - what do you think happens at the North and South Poles (possibly some sort of abiss ;) ).
 
Yes, if they go to a real globe, they'd probably have to get rid of squares. I can't see them doing that, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.
 
yes, the sqaues should be squished squares e.g.
__
/ \
/ \ kidna that sape (may well not work.... oh well. like you would see on an atlas...

And obviously it is an abbyss at the poles, you cant jump over the edge and fall until you meet the centre of gravity and then stay still (the form of bungee jumping i think
 
"- Very important: in civ3 there's a strong relation between territory (number of cities) and population with power andscientific research. This relation must be altered because it doesn't reflect real life. Netherlands (small territory and population) is more advanced than India (large territory and population). And too large empires can be very inefficient and often collapse. Remember China during Imperialism..."

ACtually this is sort of in the game already. A small empire with say 5 cities in democracy, universities, banks, commercial docks, hospitals, factories, etc,, will easily outproduce in terms of trade a nation with 20 cities but that are poorly maintainted. Maybe none have universities and hardly any have docks, hospitals, factories etc. And to to it off they are in monarchy or some other government still,and dont have very good improvments around their cities. so this part is already represented i think. I know India isnt exactly in Monarchy, but its not exactly western level democracy and free market economics they practice either...

I dont know how else they could do what you are asking,, except maybe make some sort of overhead cost for administrating your empire which grows in size disproportionetly with the size of your empire. But then again corruption already kind of does this.
 
I was mostly with you until
Try to put historical accuracy before fun

WHAT????????? You'd rather the game not be fun? I simply can not understand this mode of thought. Why play a game if not for fun? What could possibly override fun? When you elaborate about how historical accuracy helps your fun, I can understand, but please don't phrase things so bluntly (and incorrectly). If the game is not fun, essentially no one will play, regardless of how historically accurate it may be. The whole realism trumps fun carte blanche is a horrible idea.

[sarcasm]
I can see the advertisements now. "Come play Civ IV, where the game is so accurate, you don't even need to play! Rome always rises and waxes the same way. You don't need to do anything." Listen to this quote from one of our play-testers -- "It was so historically accurate that there was no fun." Who wouldn't want to buy a game like that?
[/sarcasm]

Beyond that, I think the iterative suggestions are good:
- As much as possible externally accessible
- Better terrain possibilities (height and vegetation at least two parts of the equation, with rainfall possibly a third) -- as long as it's clear on the map
- Better tools for modders -- of cours (even though I only rarely mod or even play mods, it's a crucial part of the Civ series and the better the tools, the better the results)
- Rework flips

Arathorn
 
I think this is an important topic I haven't seen much -- what kinds of stuff people want to script. Maybe there should be a thread...
 
Arathorn said:
I was mostly with you until


WHAT????????? You'd rather the game not be fun? I simply can not understand this mode of thought. Why play a game if not for fun? What could possibly override fun?

I mean, would you like to play with dinos and machs because they are fun? Would you like to have underwater cities becasue they are fun?
Would you like to play with legionaries that fly and shoot missiles? They are fun, right? But this is CIVILIZATION!
 
I mean, would you like to play with dinos and machs because they are fun?
If it's balanced, sure! But I think it'd be less fun than with some historical immersion, although I'm probably at the far end on the opposite end of the immersion scale -- I get immersed but historical realism is less than .1% of it.

If they changed the game to make tanks always beat spears or for Rome to always wax, would that make the game more historically accurate? Probably. Would it make it less fun? Definitely -- at least for me. Where do you end it?

BTW, I've not read GDR, but I imagine a game like they are envisioning wouldn't be fun for me, either. Maybe once, as an odd mod when I'm way too short on sleep, but....

Arathorn
 
Come on, fun is subjective... I think some people would find historical accuracy fun, while others want to play all the way until the advent of AI and mutants and aliens.

A good scripting language will allow both.

The core game should probably be basically realistic though.
 
But I wanted Arathorn to understand what I was talking about

I'm afraid we've failed. Whether the failure in communication is on the sending end, the receiving end, or both, though, is unknown to me. :(

Come on, fun is subjective...

Definitely true.

If somebody wants to argue that historical immersion and correctness are more likely to make the game fun than strategic depth and elimination of tedium, they have every right to do so. It can even be true for them, although it's definitely not true for me. What I don't understand is why someone would argue that historical accuracy takes precedence over fun. "This is no fun to play and it doesn't add anything, but it's accurate." Why would anyone choose that?

A good scripting language will allow both.

Agreed. And this very good and true idea is in danger of being lost. As are many of Rhye's other very good ideas. So I'll repeat it in your quote and agree to agree....

The core game should probably be basically realistic though.

Agreed, although it honestly makes only the most trifling of difference to me. There's no reason to NOT make something realistic and if two coding options provide similar gaming value and one is realistic and the other not, it of course makes sense to choose the realistic option.

But the problem comes when there are two easy options -- one is realistic but drastically unbalances the game and the other is almost painfully unrealistic but makes for better gameplay. I wholeheartedly endorse the second, where a third option can not be found. I tend to think Rhye disagrees. And I doubt either of us will change the other's mind....

Arathorn
 
"Fun" meant that there should not be too much kiddy stuff like the giant killer robots someone suggested... :P

Anyway, the best thing they can do to Civ4 is to give Civ3 the awaited final patch to solve the remaining big issues. :)
 
The question of historical accuracy VS. fun really depends on relevant subject material - obviously, you would not want Pink-and-purple-polka-dotted elephants that can fly as important units in the game - not because whether it's fun or not, but because it doesn't fit within the theme of the game.

That is why FUN is more important than historical accuracy - the FUN aspects are assumed to be taken from the proper context and not completely wacked out. The point is that there's not a immense amount of micromanagement to worry about every turn and things along those lines. Making things streamlined, but accurate. That is fun.

And all this coming from a history major. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom